 | Oil Watch - Global Liquid Fuel Production Trends (EIA data) | The Oil Drum | Oil Watch: North America Liquid Fuel Production |  |
Will U.S. Oil Consumption Continue to Decline?
Posted by Rembrandt on December 13, 2012 - 4:56am
This is a guest post by James Hamilton, Professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego. This post originally appeared on the Econbrowser blog here.
A lot of attention has been given to the optimistic assessments of future U.S. and Iraqi oil production in the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012. However, perhaps even more dramatic is the report's prediction of a significant long-term decline in petroleum consumption from the OECD countries. For example, the report predicts about a 1 mb/d drop in U.S. oil consumption by 2020 and a 5 mb/d drop by 2035 relative to current levels. I was curious to examine some of the fundamentals behind petroleum consumption to assess the plausibility of the IEA projections.
Fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in the United States has been increasing rapidly over the last five years, meaning that the typical new car gets substantially more miles per gallon than older vehicles. If Americans keep buying cars that are no more efficient than the typical model sold in 2012, average fuel efficiency of the existing fleet will continue to rise over time, as older cars are scrapped and replaced with new models.
Figure 2. Average miles per gallon of passenger vehicles sold in the United States, monthly Oct 2007 to Oct 2012. Source: UMTRI.
To get a quick idea for the likely magnitude of this effect, I assumed that the age of the existing fleet can be described using an exponential distribution, according to which the fraction of cars less than x years old can be calculated from the formula
1 - e-gx where g is a parameter that characterizes the distribution. This distribution would arise, for example, if there were no changes over time and if a constant fraction g of existing cars were scrapped and replaced with a new car each year independent of age. Although one could build much more detailed models that take into account differential scrappage and utilization rates by age, the exponential distribution seems appropriate for the kind of ballpark calculations I'm interested in here. The average age of cars currently being driven has been separately estimated to be around 11 years, which would imply a value of g = 1/11. As a separate check on the plausibility of the assumption of an exponential distribution, the model predicts that a fraction 1 - e-1/11 = 0.087 of the cars currently on the road should be less than 1 year old. In 2010 there were 131 million automobiles registered in the United States and 11.5 million new passenger vehicles sold, for a directly calculated ratio of 11.5/131 = 0.088. So I'm comfortable using the exponential distribution for calculations like the ones I'm about to report.
To use this distribution, I need a longer time series for the fuel efficiency of new vehicles, for which I used figures reported by the NHTSA shown in the graph below. These systematically report miles per gallon to be a higher number than the EPA sticker figures in the graph above. However, all the key calculations below refer to changes over time, so if the official NHTSA figures at least have accurate estimates of the rate of change in mpg of new cars sold from one year to the next, the estimates below will still be accurate.
Figure 3. Blue line: Average miles per gallon of passenger vehicles sold in the United States, annually 1978 to 2012, from NHTSA. Scenario 1 assumes this stays frozen at current value of 33.2 mpg, while Scenario 2 assumes it increases by 2.5% per year.
Given the history of the average mileage of new vehicles sold each year (the blue line in the figure above) and an assumed fraction of cars of each age still on the road implied by the exponential distribution, I calculated the current average fuel economy of the existing fleet to be 27 mpg-- this is essentially just a geometric weighted average of the most recent values for the blue line in the graph above. If new cars offer 33 mpg, the average fuel economy of the existing fleet will continue to rise with time even if nothing else changes. For example, if the fuel efficiency of new cars sold in 2013 is no better than it was in 2012, the average fuel economy of the typical car on the road will improve to 27.6 mpg next year as more 33 mpg cars replace some of the less fuel-efficient models currently on the road. If there are no further improvements in fuel efficiency over the next decade, I calculate that the average car on the road would be getting 30.5 mpg by 2020.
However, current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules call for increasing mileage standards over this decade. MIT Professor Christopher Knittel estimates that technological progress would allow average miles per gallon to grow by about 2% per year with constant vehicle size and horsepower, and torque, and faster if we gradually move to smaller cars. In Scenario 2 in the graph above, I assume that the average miles per gallon of newly sold vehicles increases by 2.5% per year. That would result in slightly better mileage each year than anticipated to result from current CAFE standards. Under this scenario, the average efficiency for existing cars would rise to 27.7 mpg in 2013 and 32.8 by 2020, when the average new car sold in 2020 is assumed to get 40.5 mpg as measured by the NHTSA (translating into a presumed EPA sticker mileage of perhaps 30 mpg).
The next question is how much a reduction in consumption this would translate into. First suppose that the total number of miles driven never goes up from 2012 levels. That would mean a ratio of gallons consumed in 2013 to gallons consumed in 2012 of (27.0/27.6) = 0.978 or a 2.2% reduction under Scenario 1 and a 2.4% reduction under Scenario 2. By 2020 we would have an 11.4% reduction under Scenario 1 and a 17.8% reduction under Scenario 2.
Table 1. Note table calculations are based on more significant digits than are reported in the text. mpg = miles per gallon; vmt = vehicle miles traveled.
But does it make any sense to expect that total miles driven remains frozen? Historically, it would usually take both a significant recession and a big spike in oil prices to produce a temporary dip down in U.S. vehicle miles traveled. Nevertheless, so far there is no sign of U.S. miles driven climbing back up to where it had been prior to the Great Recession.
Bill McBride notes that the drop in miles driven since 2007 is not just due to higher gasoline prices and the weak economy. Older people drive less than younger, so as America ages, that would be a factor offsetting the effects of higher income and a growing population and leading us to expect a slower growth rate over the next decade than we have seen previously. Bill also reports evidence of a values shift of younger people away from cars, and some changes in patterns of home and work location that reduce total driving.
Miles driven grew at an average annual rate of 2.7% between 1980 and 2005. Suppose for illustration we believed that demographic and values shifts will result in growth at less than half that rate over the next decade. That would mean a net drop in U.S. oil consumption next year of 1.3 - 2.2 = -0.9% under Scenario 1 and a drop by 2020 of (8)(1.3) - 11.4 = -1.0%. By contrast, under Scenario 2 we'd be talking about a 7.4% decline by 2020. With current oil consumption around 18.7 mb/d, that would correspond to a saving of 1.4 mb/d by 2020.
Note these calculations do not take into account further possible reductions from increased use of biofuels and natural gas for transportation.
My conclusion is that if the price of oil remains at its current value, an ongoing decline in U.S. oil consumption over the next decade is a plausible baseline scenario even without the currently planned CAFE standards. If the price rises modestly from its current value (as the IEA analysis assumes), given the increased commitment to conservation already embodied in current standards, a reduction in consumption by 2020 of the size assumed in the IEA report looks reasonable.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Also curious to see the impact manufacturing relocation back to the OECD will make to oil demand and population growth - if global trade costs continue to increase either via direct effects of fuel prices or costs of new tankers/technology been passed on, plus higher inflation in developing countries (wage growth), won't be too long in my opinion for Asian manufactures to start considering the moving of production closer to the end consumer eg heavy energy expensive manufacturing back to the OECD ?
Thank you for bringing up de-globalization and that the US population is predicted to explode (predicted because I feel it will not as the energy crisis takes hold) similarly to many developing countries.
Also, many of the increases in fuel economy are due to finally using computer controls to regulate the ICE cycle. That is giving us a good boost now but should flatten out as diminishing returns are met. Of course, we could always make a strong move towards EVs and plug-in hybrids but the costs are just too high currently for rapid adoption.
Yes, we will be getting smaller cars and moving closer to our jobs as things get tighter and more expensive.
I am one of those that think the US will reach energy independence. Of course, not the way people are talking about. Not at 22 mbd of oil consumption! We will reach energy independence because the global economy is likely to collapse and we will be a far more isolated nation, using far less fossil fuels.
It amazes me how the predictions seems to completely ignore the fact that we live on a finite planet that is already deep into resource use overshoot. I guess that is just human nature - ignore until a fire breaks out.
Bill Moore of EVWorld.com once spoke to the Director(?) of the Toyota Museum who had spoken to the CEO(?) of Toyota. In essence, the CEO said that there is no conspiracy, we talk to the CEO's of the major oil companies about supply and price. We discuss what was said and make decisions accordingly. "If we get it wrong, we go bankrupt." With that in mind, if you look at what Toyota and other car companies are doing, you may see a trend. There are certainly more commercially built EVs and hybrids on the road. I see more bicycle lanes and trails in our area. The signs are that we are moving away from fossil fueled vehicles and in a pronounced way.
The battery pack for the tZero (prototype for the Tesla) cost about $155K in the mid 90's. Tesla was offering to sell a pack to Th!nk for their production cost of $25K. The range might not be the same as the 1995 pack but $25K is closer to being affordable.
Following the old adage that the Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stone, the oil age will not end because of a lack of oil. We will use alternatives to oil. What will go down faster? Oil production or the vehicles that use oil? If Toyota and the other car companies are doing their homework correctly (along with the oil companies), we should have ample direction on fossil fuel supply. However, we still heat (and cool) our homes with fossil fuels either directly or indirectly and that may be a major problem.
In a way, I see it coming and have added solar hot water and PV to my house reducing my electrical consumption by 54%. I can do better by turning off more lights and using more energy efficient devices or none at all. However, my wife still likes her electric dryer... But, I have been riding a bike more.
I have no problem with driving electrically on a local basis at 9K miles a year and rent a car for the remainder. I hope that our battery technology and solar cell efficiency increases faster than our need for fossil fuel based heating and cooling. I am not so sanguine about it for folks up north.
hi pete
interesting and informative
but you know , can anyone prove that the "Following the old adage that the Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stone, " I do wonder if thats true because nobody has defined what the "stone" is ....
Well guys the " Energy age will not end because of the lack of energy "
but the Flint age - well I'll have to dig up some links but in the UK I was reading how the flint mines were getting deeper and deeper and more difficult to find good flint .....
mind you if you read this link
http://www.showcaves.com/english/explain/Mines/Flint.html
we havent actually left the stone age........
Forbin
The oil age will enter deep decline once the price rises high enough for alternatives like EVs to be more attractive. Right now, the total operating cost of an EV (after tax-credit) is probably about the same as the total operating cost of a gas car over the lifetimes of the cars. However, this requires the tax-credit and the EV has downsides such as limited range and long refuel time. As the price of oil keeps moving up, EVs will become more desirable and people will eventually start adopting them.
But oil will still be used for centuries because of things like aviation, long-haul transportation, maritime shipping, etc.
the EV has downsides such as limited range and long refuel time.
The Extended Range EV (EREV aka plug-in hybrid) is the straightforward answer to this. Adding an onboard generator doesn't add much cost, and if the range is decent they don't use much fuel. For instance, Volt owners drive around 75% on electricity, and some do 90%+.
oil will still be used for centuries because of things like aviation, long-haul transportation, maritime shipping, etc.
That's true, though increasing efficiency and electrification will reduce these to sufficiently small niches that synthetic fuels (from renewable power, not biofuels) will work just fine.
The Extended Range EV (EREV aka plug-in hybrid) is the straightforward answer to this.
I agree, the whole limited range issue has been so over-hyped. Once you adjust your lifestyle, it really isn't a problem. How often do you need to go farther than the daily range of a Leaf? Hardly ever. And if you do, you take a break at a public charging station along the way, or heaven forbid, borrow an ICE-powered car! I sometimes drive hundreds of km in a day, with only a few hours of top-up midway. Not an issue at all.
increasing efficiency and electrification will reduce these to sufficiently small niches that synthetic fuels (from renewable power, not biofuels) will work just fine.
I disagree with that comment, however, since there are thermodynamic efficiency limits that we are very close to now. We could probably shave a little bit off in the future but this would require lots of additional energy just to build out this new, marginally more efficient infrastructure. In a time of plenty of oil, that might be feasible. But since the US in particular is frantically running out of oil, I don't think it will be so straightforward. Furthermore, future economic and population growth from 6 billion people wanting a western lifestyle will suck up those efficiency gains.
there are thermodynamic efficiency limits that we are very close to now.
I'm not referring to power conversion, I mean energy consumption. Planes, trains and boats could use 1/3 the energy. That would make synthetic fuel affordable, even if it cost 3x as much.
We could probably shave a little bit off in the future but this would require lots of additional energy just to build out this new, marginally more efficient infrastructure.
EVs don't require more energy to build.
"Planes, trains and boats could use 1/3 the energy."
Planes - as far as commercial aviation, there really isn't that kind of room for improvement. I don't have any direct sources but the gains that are left to be made are maybe 20% improvement and at current pace that would take a long long time to realize.
Trains - it'd be nice for Alan to pop in, but from what he's said there seems to be ample room for electrification, so that might be possible.
Boats - can and have been slowing down and they're starting to experiment with kites/wind power. How far that can get them it's hard to say. Slowing down saves a lot of fuel. Power requirements for non-planing hulls go astronomical as hull speed is reached. But to move the same amount of cargo at a slower pace also requires more boats.
Boats and ships are also going to LNG for fuel, for both air pollution and cost control reasons.
They are also playing around with LNG trains.
I don't think they have got around to LNG planes yet, lol, but we do need to leave something still using oil.
http://hhpinsight.com/
The electricity to compress (CNG) or cool (LNG) natural gas for long haul trucks is about 90% of the electricity required to just move the freight by an electrified double stack container train sans the natural gas.
Boil off from LNG in truck fuel tanks and truck stop tanks will be a major source of methane release - and make greenhouse gas emissions increase.
Best Hopes for Better Solutions than LNG trucks,
Alan
Boil off from LNG in truck fuel tanks and truck stop tanks
Are you sure? I would assume that truck stops, at least, would have the proper cryogenics.
Fuel stations that had both CNG and LNG would just put any boil off from LNG into the CNG system.
As for the LNG on board trucks, the systems using vapour, as long as they are regularly used will be using their boil off. The High pressure injection engines using liquid injection, once again in constant use would have their boil off taken care of when refueling in some sort of vapour recovery system when refueling.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29grpe/LNG_TF-02-06e...
So if you top up every 5 days, no venting. I am sure a high mileage truck will be filling a lot more often than every 5 days. Needs to be managed, yes but not too hard to do.
I was rather surprised when I read the EIS (environmental impact statement) of a small LNG plant in Tasmania (designed to fuel half the trucks on that island) to see no recapture and they would flare the boil off. On idle trucks, the boil off would be vented AFAIK.
Methane is a strong GHG.
The Tasman LNG plant is also next door to the world's largest medical opiate processing plant (about half the world supply). An explosion there, and our supply of morphine is in danger.
Alan
Alan,
I believe it was me that sent you the PDF with the EIS. Honestly can't remember what controls they had for boil off, but one advantage the US setup has over the Aussie setup, you are going for both CNG and LNG. This makes any boil off from LNG to be easily compressed and used for CNG. The boil off should be made use of, instead of flaring or worse, venting.
Maybe they also should have feature that if your truck is going to be idle for awhile, you should be able to return the LNG to the service station to avoid flaring. That shouldn't be too hard to implement, and cut down on waste and green house gasses.
A truck driver stops to eat - his fuel tank vents after a few minutes. He or she stops for required rest, much more venting.
I have seen no plans for capturing venting methane from truck fuel tanks. And LNG will boil off constantly.
Alan
Alan,
These are your regulations, 5 days is a long meal stop!
A spark igintion engine using vapor would be constantly cooling itself and will require heaters in the fuel line. The main tank will be doing anything but venting for quiet awhile when shut down.
The compression ignition engines will not quiet have the same cooling effect but in the link I posted above and i repeat it here. The process of controlling venting is explained.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29grpe/LNG_TF-02-06e...
Good to know - I did not know that.
Alan
Alan,
Out of interest, are there any rail systems in the world running double stacked 9'6" container under 25KVA electric wires?
It seems as though power lines would need to be quiet high, especially for tunnels and overhead bridges.
From what I have seen, double stacking only seems popular in the USA, where we all know electric trains currently are not in favour by the big railways. In Europe I have only ever seen single stack containers, not to say there aren't any doubles, just I haven't seem any.
China, using double stack 8' containers and India - 2,700 km of new freight only track.
India uses flat cars, instead of well cars (broad gauge allows this) so this raises the top of container to about what a 9.5' & 8' double stack container in a well car would require.
AFAIK, 9.5' tall, 53' long containers, are only in North America. Some supersize containers in Scandavia, but I forgot the details.
From vague memory, there is a EU rail line from the Netherlands into Germany that has double stack containers.
Most EU rail lines electrified before the container era - and they use low axles weights - so double stack will require new or heavily reworked rail lines. I think that there are plans for a rail freight line from Spain to the Baltic.
Alan
Thanks Alan,
Assume all these tracks you are mention are HV overhead electric?
As for your super size containers, 9ft 6in x 53ft maybe a US special, but 9ft 6in high x 40ft or 20ft is the standard in use today. You don't see too many 8ft high containers anymore, except for reefers due to historic reasons.
It seems from your summery, that double stack 9'6" electric track basically require planning and building from scratch, as major modification would be required for existing rail track and rolling stock.
To be honest, I thought 8' tall was still the international standard. We certainly see a lot of them coming into the Port of New Orleans ! And I live a few blocks from the Public Belt rail line. I will look more closely.
China is in the process of electrifying 20,000 km this decade. I suspect that they would go with the new standard - as would India. But I do not recall the data.
US rail lines are busy expanding clearances for double stack containers. N-S in particular has been aggressive.
Best Hopes for More,
Alan
All new electrification is overhead wire. 25 kV except where they speak German or Swedish. 3rd rail - outside of controlled access Metro - is left over from the early 20th Century. Southern England & Long Island New York are the only 3rd rail in rural settings that I know of. I vaguely remember Italy had some, but I THINK those are overhead now.
(Some modern French trams in sensitive places roll over an embedded 3rd rail where the power is turned on & off as the tram passes).
The ratio for diesel > electric trains with minimal braking is 2.5 > 1 (end use refined diesel > electricity#). Add regenerative braking in mountains and urban areas and this increases to 3 > 1.
# Transmission and transforming losses for major industrial users are significantly lower than for residential and light commercial users.
Best Hopes,
Alan
PS: There are some things that can reduce ship energy use besides slower. Bigger is one. The square/cube Law. So, perhaps, the same # of ships, just bigger & slower, using 1/3rd the fuel (savings combined from both bigger & slower). Also new anti-fouling paints, even more efficient engines and hull designs (a few %)/ Google Emma Maersk for ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk#Engine_and_hull
A new, larger class of container class ships is on order.
Alan,
Your electric trains are ideally setup for regenerative breaking as you know. Being able to feed hopefully clean electricity back into the power line for other trains on the system to use, but in smaller electrical systems, regen power can be a problem. All drilling rigs use electric breaking to lower the drill string into the well, whether they are either AC or DC. Most of this power is lost to heat sinks as it can't be handled successfully within our systems.
Regen breaking is so much more controllable and user friendly than friction brakes, just need the ability to reuse the power in a controlled fashion as it is normally very dirty/spikey power. It is hard to see on a truck or even a train set that this power could be put to productive use of this excess power with out massive battery packs or HP air/hydraulic tanks taking away from from the payload once again.
For electric rail large investment in overhead lines need to be made, which the US rail companies do not seem to be too keen on at the moment. I would would be interested to hear if they are making plans to change this. In the meantime the LNG route seems to be a possible short term way to getting away from high cost diesel. The US railways don't seem too keen, it seems as though it is the Canadian railways doing the pushing at the moment.
http://hhpinsight.com/rail/2012/10/cn-progress-on-lng-trains/
Good luck with your work, always appreciate your input, you do have a large battle in front of you. I do like rail, and I can say I have traveled from London to Hong Kong mainly be rail, I just don't see appetite in the states for electric rail.
I get the feeling the rail networks only need to out run their buddy (road transport) and they don't need to out run the bear (oil depletion)
It is hard to see on a truck or even a train set that this power could be put to productive use of this excess power with out massive battery packs or HP air/hydraulic tanks taking away from from the payload once again.
On trucks I can see the issue, but on trains? Are you talking 50 cars worth equipment or one or two?
Luke,
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/09/trains-regen-philadelphia/
This is for a commuter train, not a 10,000 ton, 100 car unit train. I believe we are talking a large volume and cost. Remember ever car load of batteries, apart from capex is 1% off the payload.
This appears to be a small system. In a larger system the average consumption (draw) from the 3rd rail would be larger than the regen braking output from a single train, eliminating the need for batteries.
Here is a successful regen system working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake
This feeds into the mains. I believe the trick is for regen to work than you require a very large system or otherwise you get too many spikes. Which once you try and place all this excess power onboard an individual unit truck or train it won't be practical. I did read trains, not sure AC or DC actually use air fin heat sinks to disperse excess heat from regen braking.
Reusing regen brake energy looks like one of those pieces of low hanging fruit just out of reach at the moment, without going to great capital expense of a full over head wire rail setup, which the main US rail companies seem loath to do in the current environment.
Two questions:
1) why not size a battery to the minimum amount of energy cycled every day? That would be very cost effective.
2) Solar is suddenly cheap - it can easily produce power for $.15/kWh, or less if installation were cheap (as it could be on mass produced containers). That's much less than the price of power from diesel. Why not put it on the roof of containers on every train?
It is hard to see on a truck or even a train set that this power could be put to productive use of this excess power with out massive battery packs
This is done successfully on much smaller passenger cars. The latest generation of Li-ion batteries can handle very high charge rates.
Nick,
Battery packs in cars don't have to compete against payload as it does in a freight truck. Every kilo of battery is a kilo you can't charge someone for. These battery packs would need to sized for mountain crossings, whether the truck goes there or not, and would still most likely need a heat sink for that one extra long hill.
Battery packs could be much smaller- trucks would always have conventional brakes.
Planes - as far as commercial aviation, there really isn't that kind of room for improvement.
First, while jet fuel is probably the hardest use for oil to replace, there are a number of ways to use it more efficiently. Short term changes include replacing or reducing use of older, much less efficient planes; filling planes more fully (increasing load factor); longer and more gradual descents, reducing powered flight time; reduced time in the air waiting to land; electric "tugs" on the ground); slightly slower flying speeds; and a long list of others - ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/business/09air.html?_r=1&th&emc=th ). A lot of the changes are operational, so they're very fast. Others, like the Boeing Dreamliner, are being delivered pretty much right now. This might be expected to reduce fuel costs by roughly 1/3.
2nd, fuel is only very roughly 40% of airline costs, and oil is only part of the cost of fuel (jet fuel is higher quality, and therefore more expensive). Combined with the efficiencies discussed above, this means that if oil prices were to rise by 100%, airline ticket prices would only go up by 25%. That's not going to stop people from flying.
3rd, it's very unlikely that oil prices will rise by 100% in a sustained fashion. First, oil prices above $150 would slow down economic growth (if not stop it entirely). 2nd, all of the major uses for oil have substitutes that are cheaper when oil rises above roughly $80. If oil prices went to $150 and stayed there for any length of time, consumers would move to carpooling, mass transit, hybrids, EREVs, EVs, rail, heat pumps, etc, etc, very very quickly. Both of these effects would keep prices from rising further, and probably reduce them from that peak.
4th, in the long term, design changes can reduce fuel consumption by 70%:
"CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — In what could set the stage for a fundamental shift in commercial aviation, an MIT-led team has designed a green airplane that is estimated to use 70 percent less fuel than current planes while also reducing noise and emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx). http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/green-airplanes.html
and
"the team has found that the SUGAR Volt concept (which adds an electric battery gas turbine hybrid propulsion system) can reduce fuel burn by greater than 70 percent and total energy use by 55 percent when battery energy is included. Moreover, the fuel burn reduction and the ‘greening’ of the electrical power grid can produce large reductions in emissions of life cycle CO2 and nitrous oxide. Hybrid electric propulsion also has the potential to shorten takeoff distance and reduce noise. "
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/06/corp_envision_06_14_10.html
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/efficient-new-airliner-design-slows...
5th, fuel can be synthesized from electricity, seawater and atmospheric CO2 right now, but the costs are high - roughly $10/gallon. The Green Freedom project promises synthetic fuel for $4.50 per gallon, pretty close to where we are today, but if they never fulfill that promise we can still synthesize fuel, albeit at higher cost.
30 years is enough time for aviation to become more efficient - that will keep it going another 20-30 years. 50-60 years is enough to develop and streamline substitutes like biofuels, synthetics liquid fuels (from renewable electricity, hydrogen from seawater electrolysis and atmospheric carbon), or liquid hydrogen.
Green Fredom is probably a very, very long-term thing. Things like CTL, GTL and syncrude will continue for a very long time. It would require a very strong commitment to completely get rid of fossil fuels in the medium term.
The actual balance between efficiency improvements and reductions in synthetic fuel costs remain to be seen, but it's highly likely that we'll see synthetic fueled jets with operating costs equal to those of today's airlines.
Following the old adage that the Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stone, the oil age will not end because of a lack of oil. We will use alternatives to oil. What will go down faster? Oil production or the vehicles that use oil?
I don't think I agree with that. Oil is too critical in every aspect of our modern society for alternatives to ramp up before it gets depleted (biofuels cannot scale anywhere near to what would be required, and artificial photosynthesis is still in its infancy with major technical hurdles to overcome, i.e., where does the carbon source come from?). Oil could be made from other fossil fuels like natural gas and coal if price is high enough, but these too will deplete so I lump gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids in with "oil".
Beyond fossil fuel sources, there is NO practical way, using today's technology, for us to substitute oil. Therefore, substitution is going to be a very difficult transition, if it will even be possible. The very significant risk is that society will simply collapse instead.
there is NO practical way, using today's technology, for us to substitute oil.
Sure, there is. Oil can be replaced - it isn't somehow magically necessary for industrial/modern civilization. Oil has been cheap and convenient for the last 100 years, but the industrial revolution started without it, and modern civilization certainly will continue without it.
• 130 years ago, kerosene was needed for illumination, and then electric lighting made it obsolete. The whole oil industry was in trouble for a little while, until someone (Benz) came up the infernal combustion engine-powered horseless carriage. EVs were still better than these noisy, dirty contraptions, which were difficult and dangerous to start. Sadly, someone came up with the first step towards electrifying the ICE vehicle, the electric starter, and that managed to temporarily kill the EV.
Now, of course, oil has become more expensive than it's worth, what with it's various kinds of pollution, and it's enormous security and supply problems.
• 40 years ago oil was 20% of US electrical generation, and now it's less than .8%.
• 40 years ago many homes in the US were heated with heating oil - the number has fallen by 75% since then.
• US cars increased their MPG by 60% from about 1976 to about 1991.
• 50% of oil consumption is for personal transportation - this could be reduced by 60% by moving from the average US vehicle to something Prius-like. It could be reduced by 90% by going to something Volt-like. It could be reduced 100% by going to something Leaf-like. These are all cost effective, scalable, and here right now.
I personally prefer bikes and electric trains. But, hybrids, EREVs and EVs are cost effective, quickly scalable, and usable by almost everyone.
Sensible people won't move to a new home to reduce commuting fuel consumption. That would be far, far more expensive than replacing the car. It makes far more sense to buy an EV and amortize the premium over 10 years at a cost of about $1,000 per year (much less than their fuel savings), versus moving to a much higher cost environment (either higher rent or higher mortgage).
• As Alan Drake has shown, freight transportation can kick the oil-addiction habit relatively easily.
We don't need oil (or FF), and we should kick our addiction to it ASAP.
The only reason we haven't yet is the desperate resistance from the minority of workers and investors who would lose careers and investments if we made oil and other FFs obsolete.
130 years ago, kerosene was needed for illumination, and then electric lighting made it obsolete.
And where did that electricity come from?
40 years ago many homes in the US were heated with heating oil - the number has fallen by 75% since then.
And what fossil fuel took heating oil's place?
US cars increased their MPG by 60% from about 1976 to about 1991.
How many more cars were there in 1991 vs. 1976? How much oil and fossil fuels did it require to manufacture this new more fuel efficient car fleet?
50% of oil consumption is for personal transportation - this could be reduced by 60% by moving from the average US vehicle to something Prius-like.
Since the US imports over half of the oil it burns (a highly unsustainable situation -- this WILL end in the not-too-distant future), then a complete transition to hybrids (who is going to pay for all of them? How long would it take?) could maybe reduce that so the US imports ONLY 1/4 of its oil...
oil consumption ... could be reduced by 90% by going to something Volt-like. It could be reduced 100% by going to something Leaf-like.
Not at all. How many of the parts in a Leaf are made from oil? Actually, a better way of phrasing that would be to ask how many parts AREN'T made from oil? Rubber? Wire insulation? Anything plastic or synthetic? Paint? How about all the coal and natural gas (and oil) needed to mine and refine all the raw materials (where does steel come from?). How much fossil fuel is needed to produce the electricity to charge the Volt? I know that you will counter-argue that wind, solar and nuclear will be able to power this in the future. Well, when the sum of all of those energy sources breaks past 1% of energy supply, then maybe I'll entertain the marginal plausibility of your fantasy of being able to power a modern industrial society at levels similar to today, without fossil fuels.
We don't need oil (or FF)
I used to think that too. Then I really looked at the numbers.
As Alan says, best hopes for the transition.
130 years ago, kerosene was needed for illumination, and then electric lighting made it obsolete. - And where did that electricity come from?
Hydro, mostly. Of course, fossil fuels dominated fairly quickly. OTOH, that's not necessary now.
what fossil fuel took heating oil's place?
FF doesn't have to. Better insulation may be the single biggest "source", and wind and solar can provide the rest. Cape Wind will provide about 75% of the power needed nearby, for instance.
How much oil and fossil fuels did it require to manufacture this new more fuel efficient car fleet?
Not much oil. More importantly, FFs aren't "required" for manufacturing.
a complete transition to hybrids ...) could maybe reduce that so the US imports ONLY 1/4 of its oil.
Well, a 60% reduction of the 50% personal transport component would give a 65% reduction of the US's net liquid fuel imports (about 45% of consumption).
How many of the parts in a Leaf are made from oil?
The oil input is very, very small compared to the lifecycle consumption of fuel. Most of the average vehicle is steel. Other components include other metals, glass, etc. If plastic & petro-rubber makes up as much as 500 lbs of the car, that's only the equivalent of 80 gallons of fuel - that's about 1% of the lifetime fuel consumption of a vehicle.
when the sum of all of those energy sources breaks past 1% of energy supply
That's in the rearview mirror. Wind provides about 3% of electricity, and nuclear about 20%. That's about 8% of overall equivalent energy supply.
Everybody seems hung up on how much EVs and HEVs are going to lower oil usage, but the transformation to CNG and LNG in the US trucking industry, not to mention LNG for shipping and other high horsepower uses seems to be totally neglected.
http://hhpinsight.com/
A Prius may save 25mpg over 10000 mil per year, say 400 gallons/year
A class 8 truck running on Nat gas will save 3 mpg for 100000 miles, will save 33,000 gals of oil per. In other words one truck = 80plus Prii, or what every you call a bunch of Prius. Fedex, UPS and the like are about to be ordering CNG/LNG trucks by the 1000s, totally swamping the gains made in the hybrid car market.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/836311-cummins-play-on-cheap-natural-gas
I am not saying there is anything wrong with HEV and EVs, personally I drive small efficient ICE, would prefer a diesel but wife won't allow, but there seems to be more noise for the result while massive changes are taking place in the truck market with cheap Nat gas that is going unnoticed.
I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been more of a push towards hybridization of Big Rigs as well as aerodynamic changes to trailers, in particular. Regenerative braking could capture energy lost on those hills that they have to crawl down (while lighting their brakes on fire) when they could be recovering a massive amount of energy back into a battery. Then again there are large regions which are flat as a pancake and the weight might be a detriment, but also a lot of city and traffic areas too. Diesels are obscenely efficient at idle and low throttle so start/stop might not add all that much, but trickle-charge, regenerative braking and acceleration assistance (where diesels are least efficient) could be substantial for in-city operation and hills.
The dog-ugliest simple things can improve aerodynamics by a significant amount...look at this ridiculously simple thing: http://smarttrucksystems.com/undertray-performance.php
http://www.atdynamics.com/
Things have been happening but at a pretty glacial pace. It's been a number of years now that I noticed a transition to auxiliary power units to supply electricity (while not driving), rather than leaving the main engine idling. A lot of the changes can be deceptive. A large aerodynamic change can be made without the accompanying "futuristic" looks.
I agree and disagree about hybridization. I would have though rubbish trucks haven't gone more down that route, with all the breaking they require during pick-up. But as for main line trucking, most trucks endeavour to run at maximum axle loads they can legally carry. The need to carry heavy batteries will put great stains on the economics of the truck if their payload is reduced in any manor.
In Oz, one of the big hold backs to CNG usage, is the weight of the 3600psi fuel tank. The operators wanted the govt to give them a free waver for the extra weight. They wouldn't, so the operators had to lose payload, thereby reducing the economics. One of the reasons CNG/LNG hasn't really taken off over here. So any weight increases have to complete against payload v cost savings. The same as some of the aerodynamic additions you attached.
I do like the idea of regenerative breaking, instead of friction breaks, but what to do with the liberated energy without forfeiting payload?
In Britain they have gone for some more radical trailer designs.
http://www.transportengineer.org.uk/article/46642/Co-op-takes-plunge-wit...
There are some other designs, but couldn't find a picture. Not sure how they work out for weight, but they do challenge the usable cubic volume. The whole trailer is a tear drop shape.
Long distance trucks spend most of their time under fairly steady throttle conditions on the freeways. The hills are the just the distraction on long runs, in Australia anyway. We are pretty flat over this way, and therefore hybridization doesn't carry much economic value for the long distance truck. A city delivery truck maybe some different all together.
So as I see it, it is a horses for courses, and definitely not a one size fits all these days to maximize the economics. Fuel just being one of the costs involved.
Yeah, it's a tricky situation and an industry with a pretty long history and certain mythology to it.
The issue of weight is a valid concern, especially considering that sanity has already been tossed out the window. I think they're up to 80,000 pounds these days and pushing for 100,000 pounds. Considering the damage done to pavement is somewhere in the 4th power of axle weight and also increases with speed - this is some pretty damning stuff. Most roads were never meant to see this kind of weight and speed. A number of years back part of I40 was closed and all traffic, including the heavy trucks, was diverted up I26 which never really gets the heavy truck traffic - and it was torn to shreds. Every week the road crews would be out patching up new holes and re-patching old holes.
I'm not sure if the aerodynamic bits have been weight exempted, but the tail pieces have been length exempted. The stealth aerodynamic trucks I somehow doubt are substantially heavier than an equivalent. I'd be all for a 60 mph national truck speed limit, electronic limiter enforced, as well as increasing the taxes in some fashion - as the damage they incur is currently subsidized.
Phase out the "per-mile" payment scheme which encourages speeding, tax on the ton of freight to disincentive overloaded trucks, create a weight exemption system for aerodynamic improvements...should be some easy fruit to be plucked somewhere.
GE is looking at a hybrid design for those sort of uses where you have comparatively short daily runs, starting with school buses:
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/december/ge-d...
This is interesting engineering, as it uses lithium batteries to provide power, or oomph as it is technically known ( quick access to power ) , and sodium halide for energy storage ( how far the batteries will take you )
This is topped off by using fuel cells, which are currently expensive and by just using them to keep the batteries topped their use is minimised and money saved, but higher range is possible without massive batteries.
All of these power sources are truly zero pollution at point of use, and so the heavy health consequences of traffic pollution which are becoming clearer with every study which is done would be much mitigated.
http://youtu.be/tDcEVhClCVM
What you and the guy in the video have described about the fuel cell/sodium halide batteries is essentially what I've been saying about the Chevy Volt's ICE power plant - it should be sized to put out the average loss with the battery pack absorbing the acceleration and braking energy.
Note that in that video the guy from GE mentions that the bus is a Proterra.
http://youtu.be/4V-D8p3eLuA
the Chevy Volt's ICE power plant - it should be sized to put out the average loss with the battery pack absorbing the acceleration and braking energy.
GM agrees, but their 1st priority with the 1st-gen Volt was to ensure that it exceeded everyone's expectations - it's GM's tech "halo" vehicle, intended to communicate that GM's engineering is as good or better than Toyota's. That meant that battery life was more important than optimizing ICE (or battery) size, and so they sized the ICE and designed the software to minimize battery draw.
Optimization will come later...
Legal limits control innovation. Every lb (or kg) of battery is a lb or kg of payload lost.
Maximum physical limits are set by law as well - length, height, width. Most aerodynamic improvements would take away from payload volume or be extra legal. Others save fuel in tractor trailer, but take more fuel on tractor alone (big fairings on top of tractors) for example).
Simple rounded corners on the trailer reduce the ability to carry rectangular boxes.
The best aerodynamic savings is also the simplest - just drive slower.
Only higher diesel prices have any effect there. So stop subsidizing trucjs !
http://oilfreetransport.blogspot.com/2012/06/old-conservative-small-c-pr...
Best Hopes for Lower Subsidies for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel,
Alan
Yair . . . Allan nailed it . . . just slow the trucks and all traffic.
As I have posted here before, on low speed applications 1950's diesel technology (twin steer Foden with a thirty two foot body and trailer, straight eight cylinder English Gardiner Diesel)got better milage than modern trucks do now under the same conditions.
That is to say it hauled sixty tons of rail line into remote stations to build cattle yards. Fifty years later travelling at the same speeds on the same unmade roads the modern Kenworths and Volvos cannot haul sixty tons of cattle from those same yards for the same amount of fuel . . . it all comes back to gearing, the Foden had 32mph differentials,that's as fast as it would go.
Cheers
Wind provides about 3% of electricity, and nuclear about 20%. That's about 8% of overall equivalent energy supply.
I don't know what those stats are referring to but they are highly misleading. Firstly, you are arguing that the current fossil fuel use could be substituted with electricity derived from solar and wind. Therefore, to compare apples to apples we need to include all of our liquid fuels as well. And for the whole world, nuclear+solar+wind+other non-biomass derived alternatives amount to 0.8% of energy supply.
Secondly, if your numbers are for the US, that is further misleading because the US imports so much of its oil. The US lives a privileged existence in that it can "consume" lots of energy without actually "producing" it. Furthermore, the US buys lots of foreign-made electronics and all of the energy use that went into that manufacturing is not borne by Americans.
The oil input [to make a Leaf] is very, very small compared to the lifecycle consumption of fuel.
Let's go with your 500 lb of oil-derived components in my Leaf. Because they all have to be manufactured which involves a lot of wastage, I'll double that to 1000 lb, and this may be highly conservative. Include the oil used for all the manufacturing processes themselves, say another 100 lb, that comes out to 1100 lb of oil simply to manufacture the oil-derived components. This doesn't even consider the additional oil, coal and natural gas that went into mining and smelting the steel and copper, etc., so I'm going to increase this to 1,300 lb.
That works out to 214 gallons. At the equivalent EV mileage of 100 mpg, that is 21,400 miles.
FFs aren't "required" for manufacturing
Where does the carbon come from? Can you please explain to us how we can continue manufacturing things when the feedstock for about 95% of the products used to manufacture things disappears? How do you manufacture a computer when there's no plastic? A wire for the Leaf? A wind turbine when there's no carbon for the fibreglass or wire for the windings? How do you smelt metal ore when there's no carbon for the electrodes?
I don't know what those stats are referring to but they are highly misleading
The US uses about 100 quads of primary energy. About 40% of that is electricity, and about 23% of that is wind and nuclear. That gives 9% wind/nuclear, overall.
The US produces about 20% of the world's energy, so US wind/nuclear alone are about 2% of world energy. Now, the rest of the world also has wind/nuclear, though a little less on average - add in wind/nuclear in the rest of the world, and we're probably at about 6-7%.
That's not even including hydro...
Because they all have to be manufactured which involves a lot of wastage, I'll double that to 1000 lb.
Any chemical engineer who designed a process that wasted that much would be fired.
A little more research finds the avg vehicle is 50% plastic by volume, but less than 10% by weight: 330 lbs.
Now, I'm glad you mentioned the question of mining and smelting, because that reminds me that cars are recycled - 99% of the steel, and significant percentages of the remaining components, including plastic. The plastic recycling percentage could be made quite high if virgin feedstocks became scarce, so we can conservatively reduce that 330lbs to 85.
More later...
We don't need oil (or FF)
I used to think that too. Then I really looked at the numbers.
BAU needs a lot of FF. But I think the point is that we do not need BAU. Once we accept this, then we should have no problem reducing FF use to about 1/4 of current in short order. All the necessary technologies for electrifying transport and powering it with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, biomass are in place, ready-to-use. The number of users of the Volt, Leaf, etc. who power their vehicles with their own PV is growing daily, and once their neighbors catch on, this ball will roll. Factory roofs are being covered by PV at a very health rate. Many more roofs will follow.
Offshore wind has only gotten out of bed. It will soon be making a coffee smell that everyone will sense, understand and want.
The coal we still use after that can be converted to CCS. Same for NG power plants. There exists a biomass pathway for every type of plastic we can think of, but we will have use a lot less plastic, no doubt.
But in fact I think you are correct in the sense that the last 5-10 million barrels/day of FF use will be very difficult to live without. But it should at least not be a problem to produce for a good long time.
1st, you're right that 5-10M bpd will be available for centuries, if we choose. Things like CTL, GTL and syncrude will continue for a very long time, if desired.
OTOH, synthetic fuel will work for those volumes, when needed.
Fuel can be synthesized from electricity, seawater and atmospheric CO2 right now, but the costs are high - roughly $10/gallon. The Green Freedom project promises synthetic fuel for $4.50 per gallon, pretty close to where we are today, but if they never fulfill that promise we can still synthesize fuel, albeit at higher cost.
30 years is enough time for aviation and shipping to become more efficient - that will keep it going another 20-30 years. 50-60 years is enough to develop and streamline substitutes like biofuels, synthetics liquid fuels (from renewable electricity, hydrogen from seawater electrolysis and atmospheric carbon), or liquid hydrogen.
The actual balance between efficiency improvements and reductions in synthetic fuel costs remain to be seen, but it's highly likely that we'll see synthetic fueled jets and boats with operating costs roughly equal to those of today.
CNN reported that by 2030 half the world's population will not be in poverty. Considering that the world population by 2030 will be over 8 billion people and that poverty is not defined in a local nor global sense, that was quite a statement.
If you take that statement literally, it says more people will be able to consume more resources, that seems clear. If those resources are limited or constrained, classic economics says prices will rise until only the most affluent can afford them. This says "no problem", the situation takes care of itself. Those with the most money get the most resources.
A poor person in a third world country would probably not consider most people -that we in the US consider poor- to in fact be poor. Also what will the definition of poverty in 2030 be? Certainly, the US definition of poverty has changed a lot over time. Bottom line CNN as usual tries to make informed sounds but only demonstrates their ignorance.
In this case I think you are right about CNN. The two discussing this issue were saying that there would be a massively growing "middle class" in the world with NO definition as to what that was suppose to mean.
At any rate, the statement sparked speculation on my part about what that would mean IF that were true in a none relative way. To me it meant greater demand for resources in a diminishing resource world with all the implications that brings.
Not very long ago (July 2012) the people at Oak Ridge labs put this projection in their Transportation Energy Data Book: edition 31. Apparently they are making different assumptions/using different methodology or both than the IEA and you. Any ideas what those differences are?
They say "The sharp increase in values between 2010 and 2011 are caused by the data change from historical to projected values".It looks like they assumed miles travelled jumps back to the BAU trend pre recession.
The rebound anticipated is likely too sudden but US population is growing, and fairly quickly for an OECD country. I really would like to see population growth, GDP growth, and miles driven all overlain on a single chart. That might be telling.
Miles driven grew at an average annual rate of 2.7% between 1980 and 2005. Suppose for illustration we believed that demographic and values shifts will result in growth at less than half that rate over the next decade
At the end of that decade the demographic shift will likely no longer favor the lower rate of miles driven growth all else being equal.
Back of the envelope US Population growth by decade in millions
1950-1960 ~15.3
1960-1970 ~24.4
1970-1980 ~22.6
1980-1990 ~22.0
1990-2000 ~32.7
2000-2010 ~27.2
Heck of a bulge around Clinton years wouldn't you say. That bunch, which nearly equals the population of Canada, could well be on the road in force ten years from now and there are more than twice as many of them than there were in the much hullabalooed first full decade of the baby boom. The choices we give them/stick them with will make a world of difference to the future.
A good chunk of our pop increase is not babies, but immigrants.
The immigrants are age distributed as well, break downs for that out there but I got tired of searching, pulled my numbers from stuff I had laying around. Feel free to post the actual breakdown. I'm guessing the thirty-two million addition to the US popuplation from 1990-2000 is an all time one decade high, but can't again pull anything decent up.
As fuel efficiency increases, you would expect VMT to increase. People who drive efficient cars can afford to drive more miles unless the cost of the car cut into their discretionary incomes.
As evidenced by food stamp participation, mass transit ridership, and youth unemployment, the reason VMT decreased is because there are more poor people in the USA who cannot afford to drive. To project future consumption, you may need to project the number of poor people.
This is rather presumptive. People largely buy more fuel efficient cars to save money, not to drive further for the same amount of money. My commute determines most of my mileage; I probably won't start driving farther just because I buy a Prius.
I drive a hybrid and although I don't drive more miles per se I definitely experience less of a mental hurdle when a last minute longer trip comes up.
Just yesterday I decided to go about 40 miles out of the way to check on something - so that is 80m round trip. The main variable that went into the "go" decisions was time, not fuel/money. My car does about 40mpg so I used an extra 2 gallons / about 7 bucks. Before I started the trip I spent about the same amount at starbucks.
As it turned out it was a trip worth the time/money/FF depletion, at least from a personal POV - I saved 2,900 dollars on something I needed to buy anyway. Great return on investment.
The cost of fuel practically speaking not a factor in how much I drive. Renting a spot in a garage and regular maintanance dwarf what I spend on fuel. Therefore, in my particular case, if fuel costs were to drive decision making prices would have to be much, much higher.
Rgds
WeekendPeak
Hi Andyfromindy,
I switched from a car getting 25 mpg to one getting 50 mpg and my VMT did not change. It depends on income level no doubt, but I would be surprised if VMT changes drastically with a change in fuel efficiency. We would certainly not see unitary elasticity, as in a doubling of fuel efficiency leading to a doubling in VMT.
If a low income person buys a more fuel efficient vehicle, they might drive a few more miles, or they might use the money saved to buy a new TV.
DC
Thanks for this straightforward analysis.
I just wanted to point out that the EPA used similar exponential fitting models in this 2001 study: Development and Use of Age Distributions, Average Annual Mileage Accumulation Rates, and Projected Vehicle Counts for Use in MOBILE6. They also compared the fits with a tally of vehicle registrations to assess the quality of the fits.
If I am not mistaken your mileage based calculations are applicable to oil consumption from passenger cars only. Looking at the last Petroleum Status Report, average gasoline supplied to market for past 4 weeks was 8.6mln bpd out of 19mln bpd, so about 45%. I think you should multiply the end result by 0.45, unless you assume similar efficiency savings in all other oil consuming sectors (trucks, aviation, railway etc.).
That's a fair point:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/freight_in_america/html/nations_freight....
Assuming the economy recovers a bit, VMT will increase. VMT is down in large part due to unemployment. People don't have jobs to drive to and since they don't have jobs they don't have the money to drive around for other reasons.
Figure 3 shows Average miles per gallon of passenger vehicles sold in the United States, and from the early '80's through the late '00's, it's pretty flat around 24/25 mpg, clearly never dipping below 23 mpg. Yet Figure 2 shows the mpg of model years '08 & '09 as 21 mpg. Can you explain the discrepancy?
Hi clifman, understanding history may or may not help predicting the future. If you check the statistics of Chevy Volt users who self-report to www.voltstats.net, the overall number of miles driven in electric mode is about 74% of all miles, i.e. only 26% of the miles driven were on the "range extender" ICE. A surprising number of Volt owners report 90%+ of their miles driven in pure electric mode. This could be the future if plug-in hybrids achieve significant market share. The result will be to push gasoline consumption down much, much faster than the current trend. I cannot see how car manufacturers selling in the USA can achieve 54 MPG by 2020 without a major roll-out of plug-in hybrids which run mostly on electric charging (without help from the ICE).
"Can you explain the discrepancy?"
The figure of model year should be weighting everything from a Bugatti Veyron and Bentley Continental equally with Prii and Smart cars. When it comes to actual buying them...there are more people who buy Prii than Veyrons.
I can't see the world prior to 2005 for increasing VMT coming back in the OECD.
There are a couple of factors not mentioned in the article.
The number of cars built per year is way down, as well as the miles travelled per year by individual cars decreasing somewhat.
The age of the car fleet is rising.
The assumption has been that this is all due to recession and hard economic times, and that things will return to 'normal'.
I would argue that this is the new normal for the foreseeable future.
Recessions due to financial blow-outs and banking crises last a lot longer than most recessions.
Recovery from the 1920's crash took 20 years.
That sort of time period is enough for patterns of transport to change a lot, with people tending to locate closer to work, shop closer, ride bikes etc.
None of this implies a 'Death of suburbia', but indicates that a downtrend can continue for a very long time, and have profound though gradual effects.
I realize it's just a graph about the US, etc., but, still... the first looks an awful lot like a stair-step, or an icy stalagcicle post-peak plateau with an introductory crevasse halfway between 2008 and 2009. I wonder how many fell down it...
And now, the BIS seems to be warning of another impending fissure...
Check the ropes, clips, crampons... and toboggans, boys and girls! And hang on! We may be heading down the next slope! Woohoo!... *<8D
I wouldn't read too much into the wiggles and waggles of the US plot. Connect-the-dots lines always look spiky and the non-zero-scale exaggerates the monthly variation. Here's a plot based on the same JODI data (from a few months back) that better helps you elucidate any stories in the data:
Here we see that consumption of total products has been trending downward since the beginning of 2008 when prices started to rise. Refinery output ("production") has grown a little and this has led to the increasing exports of refined products we read about. Stocks show their normal seasonal cycle but overall stocks have increased over the past year.
Jon
Thanks for the nice elaboration, Jon, which was worth my having a little fun with the spikes, the post 2008 downward-trend, the recent financial news, and the time of year.
Euan,
How did you choose the "Europe core" countries? Usually analysts use "EU" or Eurozone" for groupings. Your "Europe core" leaves out the quite large economies of the UK, Spain, and Italy which together (at a guess) use about 3 mbopd !
I called it Europe core since it includes Switzerland. Otherwise, the countries have self selected on basis of flat oil demand. UK, Italy and Spain all show a decline in oil demand, as do Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Norway is not included in core as it belongs to the group of three OECD oil exporting nations. Its all a bit subjective. But its interesting to note the difference between Europe core and USA. I'm guessing that USA will show similar pattern to Europe - some States bau whilst others are struggling.
Thinking about recent oil demand trends in a larger context than the USA is illuminating. Perhaps using unemployment changes as a proxy for oil demand changes could cast light on your question with readily available statistics.
Yeh, I'd been thinking about unemployment / employment stats but also need to look at wider energy use like gas and coal. I still find it surprising that demand for oil has not changed throughout such a large chunk of europe.
Easy to see how you conclude that
Europe is currently stuck between a rock and a very hard place.
Even though you do exclude all countries with falling demand and all oil exporters your core group still retains some of the largest European economies. I wonder if the US would offer up any grouping of states that show flat oil demand in the same period? And I wonder how useful it would be to group them in such a way?
Fuel cell technology seems likely to me to have a large impact on oil use.
That is not because people will be turning to fuel cell cars in great numbers anytime before perhaps 2025, but due to indirect effects.
Here is US electricity production by source over the last 5 years:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8450
Two things should be noted about this.
The first is the strong summer peak in demand on average for the US, in spite of areas where the winter is very severe.
That indicates to me that there is a good case for both improving the efficiency of air conditioning, using passive cooling technologies etc, and also for solar designed to help with peak use.
That is a very different ball game to the notion that the grid can be run almost entirely on renewables, and a much more do-able proposition as a lot of the really difficult things for that such as storage and generally coping with intermittency can be avoided, at least in part.
The second thing, not shown in the data, is that the US grid is only around 33% efficient, and had been for decades.
http://www.nema.org/Products/Documents/TDEnergyEff.pdf
Highly efficient combined cycle plants etc only make up a fairly small proportion of the grid, and there are gird losses of around 7% knocking around.
So to come back to my original argument, fuel cells both PEM and solid oxide are rapidly coming to the point where they can be used in the home, transforming the efficiency of use as the waste heat can be utilised instead of thrown away, and electricity grid losses are avoided.
During hurricane Sandy the most reliable back up for the grid was fuel cells, as batteries ran out and diesels often refused to start, being much more mechanically complex than fuel cells and higher maintenance.
One look at the chart shows what a massive impact using the already large natural gas input up to 3 times more efficiently would have.
That increase in efficiency could either power electric cars, or the technology can provide impetus to the cost reduction of fuel cells for cars.
One way or another an awful lot of energy resources could be freed up to help transport.
Nothing is going to change overnight, but a trend to abundant gas for many uses could be encouraged to continue for a very long time.
Fuel cells as heating systems in homes are the way to go, they use available infra structure and can easily be teamed up with heatpumps in the neighbourhood, so you get 2.5 units kWh heat for one kWh NG. At the moment the available systems are for my taste too expensive but I hope they will reduces prices and/or increase electric efficiency.
What is the chance that fuel cells (burning CNG or LNG) are used in busses? This would avoid the constraints of hydrogen (lack of infrastructure) but use the efficiency of the fuel cell.
There are already both CNG and hydrogen buses being built.
The advantage of fuel cells over CNG are that it is truly zero pollution at point of use, although of course CNG is a heck of a lot less polluting than diesel, and that it uses natural gas even after allowing for reforming losses around 50% more efficiently.
The disadvantage of course is cost until mass production is reached.
Here is a Swiss battery fuel cell hybrid:
http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2012/10/16/fuel-cell-postbus-completes-su...
And one using a combination of fuel cells, lithium batteries and sodium halide batteries:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/12/ge-20121213.html
There isn't really much point in combining heat pumps and fuel cells in the home, as depending on whether it is a PEM or a solid oxide fuel cell they turn out electricity with around 40-60% efficiency, and the remainder is heat which is used to heat water both for central heating and showers etc, and that is why they are so efficient, the heat normally thrown away at the generating station is used productively.
Distribution of the natural gas is also highly efficient, whilst electric grid losses are substantial, up to 8% in the US.
Heat pumps make sense when you are generating the electricity centrally.
For instance France has surplus nuclear power, and is installing hundreds of thousands of heat pumps.
Heat pumps for water are still expensive, as are the CO2 ones needed for severe climates.
Here in the UK I have and air source conventional heat pump, and it does a brilliant job in keeping the place warm, at a cost all up including installation of around £1500 for my Worcester/Bosch in a flat.
You need one for each level, so around £3,000 for a house.
I don't get hot water from that, but only need it for the shower and so on.
I do not want to combine fuel cell and heat pumps in the same house (or only in special cases), some houses have fuel cells, some heatpumps, the electricity provided by fuel cells is consumed locally by heat pumps in the neighbourhood. Only fuel cells make (esp. in old houses) no sense as in winter you would have a clear discrepancy between production and demand of electricity, therefore, the combination.
There are some busses with hydrogen fuel cells (Daimler?), they work but need a special infra structure, NG busses with ICEs are common as many cities have a quite good NG infrastructure even with production, so my idea would be to use fuel NG cells in busses.
A good ground source heat pump goes for 6000 EUR plus 2000 EUR for the ground heat source. With cold winters and with the current energy prices it makes in many regions more economic sense than a air source system, here UK and some parts of France where BTW many heat pumps are ground source are the exception.
I do not see why heat pumps are only useful with central electricity production, sorry.
I assume you are in Germany/Austria.
Whilst NG infrastructure may be in good supply there, it is not in most parts of the world, and although at the moment hydrogen is more expensive to install there is no overwhelming reason where the NG infrastructure is not already rolled out not to choose the more energetically efficient, cleaner burning hydrogen.
I'm not sure where your information that the energy split in old houses make the wide range in the proportionate amounts of electricity that different types of fuel cells can produce (40-60%) unsuitable come from and I don't have figures to hand.
I would have though that if they are that drafty the first thing to do would be to increase the insulation.
Your figures for installing ground source heat pumps are also much lower than those I am familiar with, as digging up the ground to start with can cost over 10,000 Euros.
The figures I have seen are around 20-30 thousand.
If you have links to lower prices, I would appreciate them.
CO2 air source heat pumps can do the job fine even in continental climates though.
Here is an old Sanyo model - the info given is fuller than other links I have, but newer models perform better:
http://www.r744.com/articles/2008-02-01-high-efficient-ecocute-models-la...
I don't really see why you would want to use heat pumps with distributed electricity production, although of course you could.
Presumably that is largely solar you are talking about.
If you are using a PV array, then converting the heat of the sun to electricity and back again all takes energy, and the heat pump to up the efficiency isn't free.
A well designed solar thermal array does not suffer those losses in the first place, although the hot water could do with the temperature upping, perhaps by a fuel cell, although there is not AFAIK anything on the market yet.
Its with centralised electric production that you score with a heat pump, as you can get back all the losses from waste heat in producing the electricity and distribution losses.
Price of heat pumps: my heat pump from Vaillant with 8 kW (Vaillant geotherm 81/2) has cost around 7000 EUR without heat source but with installation in 2007, the 6 kW variant would habe been around 6200 EUR, the new generation has higher COP and better circulation pumps, prices have only slightly increased. I paid for my ground source almost 4000 EUR due to stupid planning, a better trench solution would now be possible for 2000 EUR. So a ground source heat pump is possible in Austria or Germany for 10000 EUR or less.
My electricity demand is 4500 kWh for household, 2500 for heat pump and my heat demand for my well isolated house (170/200 sqm) is 8000 kWh for room heating of these 5000 kWh in Dec.-Feb., 2500 kWh for water for 4 persons. During summer (April-September) it takes 60 kWh per month to provide hot water for 4 persons with my heat pump (performance is around 4), therefore, small losses of a potential PV array are negligible.
It is obvious with the numbers above that a fuel cell with 50% electric efficiency would give much too much electricity in winter, so a combination with heat pumps in other houses in my neighbourhood would give a much better situation. In summer PV would be the obvious solution when batteries become cheaper. A solution with only fuel cells is IMHO not useful. Older houses have a higher heat demand in winter, therefore, produce even more problems.
CO2 heat pumps with better heat source than air have again a two times better efficiency in central Europe, this means for me that the higher costs of the ground source is still the more economic solution in the long run esp. when the ground source lasts for 60-100 years.
My house has a peak demand of 5.5 kW at a outdoor temperature of -15 °C, the (stupid) idea was to get a special heat pump tariff which, however, allowed the utility to stop delivery during peak times (max. 6 hours per day) therefore the 8 kW heat pump. The result now is that I save around 20 EUR per year compared to an alternative with higher priced household electricity but have wasted this with higher capital costs (800 EUR difference of 8 kW HP vs. 6 kW HP means 50 EUR more capital costs. :-(
Thanks for the links.
I am a bit confused about your figures from the way you have set them out.
'My electricity demand is 4500 kWh for household, 2500 for heat pump (is the 4,500kwh pa including the 2500 for the heat pump? That is what I will take it as) and my heat demand for my well isolated house (170/200 sqm) is 8000 kWh for room heating of these 5000 kWh in Dec.-Feb., 2500 kWh for water for 4 persons. During summer (April-September) it takes 60 kWh per month to provide hot water for 4 persons with my heat pump (performance is around 4), therefore, small losses of a potential PV array are negligible.'
Taking out the 2500kwh for the heat pump from the 4500(Total demand?) that gives only 2,000kwh for all other electric, which seems very low for a house, and if it were evenly spread comes to 166kwh per month.
I am surprised at such low usage, as fridges etc use a fair amount of power, even the green ones.
Usage in the winter must be higher than in the summer, but without a monthly breakdown I can't tell how much from the figures.
Your heating load in the months Dec-Feb seems to be 5,000/3 per month, or 1,666kwh.
If you used a 40% efficient fuel cell to produce that electricity (about right for a PEM) then you would have 1,110 kwh of electricity available from this.
So I can see where you are coming from in that climate, even if I can't fully understand the figures.
It sounds as though PV to heat water in the summer would be neither here nor there.
I don't much like the idea of the ground source being good for 60-100 years, as the other infrastructure for a house, the roads, sewage connections etc last way longer than that, so if the geothermal resources are over-exploited in that way, as if extracted at a high rate so that the ground has no chance to recover the heat, it is effectively mining rather than renewable other than over several hundred years.
Perhaps when that becomes a problem it would be economically possible to drill new, deeper holes which extract more diffuse heat from a larger volume, and so would not drain the resource base.
I will have to study ground source heat pumps and the link to Valliance in much more depth.
Many thanks.
Running your figures a bit more then as you say a fuel cell on its own would be wasteful.
Assuming that the 4,500kwh/year includes the 2500 for the heat pump, and taking the same ration for electric use to heating as you use in the coldest months, 5,000/8000 total, then you use 0.625 of your electricity to power your heating in the 3 coldest months, or around 1500kwh/3 per month = 500kwh/month
Adding your other electric use of 2,000 kwh/year and allowing a bit for winter peak then you use maybe 700kwh per month in those coldest months.
That is more or less an energy flow of 1kw.
So a 1kw fuel cell stack should cover your house, and fuel cells have no issue with running at part load in the summer.
That installation would suit your annual power requirements, and a solar array, BTW, would contribute almost nothing worth while as it doesn't match your power draw.
Did you notice this comment in your second link:
(My bold) I don't see these losses quoted in discussing EVs.
I use 10% for the charger loss and 10% for the battery round trip loss. One issue that is seldom mentioned is the loss at the power plants. If they are 40% efficient, that needs to be considered in the energy to the road numbers.
The Union of Concerned Scientists published a study from across the U.S. showing the power plant efficiency as well. When an EV says 100 MPGe, they do not include power plant loses. When you include those you get more like 50 MPGe. It is good to have the real numbers.
There are some duff comparisons out there.
A lot of people have fallen in love with the idea that they can put solar panels on their roof, get of the grid and run their car on that too, and so don't fancy fuel cells which they see as big oil trying to retain its grip.
The killer for solar is always annular variance, as daily can be coped with, although the storage needed costs money.
Here are the figures by town around the world for solar incidence:
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/chicago-illinois.html
This page is for Chicago, which illustrates some of the problems with this notion outside of the tropics and maybe places like Arizona with either a steady supply of sunshine or supply peaking pretty well with demand, and not having a harsh winter with a heavy heating load as Chicago does.
Insolation in Kwh per day per square metre drops from 6.04 in July to 1.50 in December.
It would be tough to power your car and house, which would both have a very high draw in cold winter weather that way without a massive, and massively expensive, overbuild.
Things are a whole lot easier for hydrogen/methane etc as they are storage mediums in themselves.
The German natural gas network contains, I was surprised to learn, several months worth of supply.
The supposed difference in efficiency just aren't there, or at any rate not nearly as great, as commonly supposed anyway.
The Leaf gets around 3.4miles/kwh measured at the wall (ibid)
That is 294watts/mile.
The typical efficiency of the US grid, which has an average of 7% transmission loss kicking around in the figures, is around 33%.
That efficiency is unlikely to go up much anytime soon, as powering up and down fossil fuel plants to cover intermittent renewables hits efficiency at any given level of cost.
So that is 882wh/mile worth of power used
The Toyota FCEV, which is a bigger car than the Leaf, used in regular driving on regular roads gets 68mpge:
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf
Taking a kilogram of hydrogen at 40kwh, that is 588wh/mile
Using 60% for natural gas reformation and compression we come out to around 980wh/mile
Transmission losses in natural gas/hydrogen delivery are a small fraction of that in the grid.
Battery only advocates then hypothesises all sorts of things, such as that sustainability means that the efficiency of producing electricity should be taken as the most efficient way possible, by using combined cycle gas turbines, which hit perhaps 65%, although of course you would still have transmission losses.
Actually, and this is something that the discussion in this thread has made me realise, the most efficient way would be to use that power that our German friend would have to throw away in a home fuel cell.
An electric car for 12,000 miles a year would use around 3,500kwh, which would put a dent in his surplus electricity in winter, and transmission losses would be minimal.
In Germany though with its excellent public transport most car journeys are long distance, which is a lot easier in a fuel cell car.
Further out battery only advocates argue that the losses involved in using electrolysis make fuel cells way less efficient than taking their energy straight.
Those arguments are somewhat self serving,in my view, as hydrogen can utilise resources such as stranded wind, and either concentrated solar or nuclear can use otherwise wasted heat in thermochemical reactions which puts the efficiency way up.
I don't know what the mix will be, but using the suite of technologies available, including fuel cells and batteries, I am confident that transport can be maintained, although I agree with the thesis of this site that oil will get scarcer and more expensive.
That is not to say that there will not be bumps on the road, however!
In the current Drumbeat, Magnus Redin describes added solar PV to 546 apartments in Linköping Sweden, supplying a quarter of their annual power economically.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9710#comment-935108
This certainly contradicts your position - which I disagree with - that solar PV is only for tropical areas. Or that it has to be for 100% of everything.
Alan
My point was that at high latitudes the combination of fuel cells and geothermal heat pumps from the figures has no economic use for the photovolataic system, which peaks at precisely the opposite time to energy use, for heating and electricity.
Those so inclined could of course add pv to further reduce electricity use in the summer as fuel cells have no problem operating at part load.
It would be economic insanity, but that does not seem to stop solar installations.
The fuel cell would still need to be sized exactly the same, as the solar array will contribute effectively nothing in the depths of winter, and nothing at all on days with heavy cloud, so unless you want to freeze the fuel cell would be needed to keep the pump going.
So solar means a multi-thousand dollar additional expense with marginal savings in natural gas burn.
This does not apply to biogas or even wind to produce hydrogen/natural gas as they do not peak at the wrong time.For the latter there are however substantial conversion losses if you want methane.
Using the solar get-out of grid electricity instead to 'back-up' ie provide almost all the power when it is really needed in the winter would be immensely wasteful, as in the US at least the grid is only around 33% efficient and the 'waste' heat would be chucked away, whilst a combined fuel cell/ heat pump house would use nearly every joule to productive use.
In hot areas of the world a solar/battery/fuel cell/air source heat pump system is a very different kettle of fish, and may well prove practical.
You don't use the same system in all climates and areas of the world.
Clearly home fuel cells are only just entering the market, and even geothermal is at a fairly early stage of market penetration, so that alternative simply was not available.
IMO of course the use of natural gas can be zeroed by using nuclear, which in combination with heat pumps could produce all the power needed.
In the west since we have not got on and built them and have a surplus of natural gas, at least in the States, then home fuel cells can provide an excellent interim solution, and reduce although not eliminate GHG
High temperature pebble bed reactors such as that under construction in China could produce both electricity and hydrogen for use both in home heating and transport.
At least if you use fuel cells as part of the energy system you would have something to do with the surplus power in the summer, even if it is both expensive and wasteful of energy to use the surplus to feed other fuel cells and produce hydrogen/methane for later use.
Round trip efficiency would be something like 20-25%, but that is for the electricity only, using heat in the home would bump that up.
Here are the insolation figures for Berlin:
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/berlin.html
It would take something like a 6-7kw array at that latitude to supply the equivalent of 1kw of flow.
Even the far lower use of around 1/3kw in the summer is not going to cover you for the depths of winter, when the solar input is trivial after conversion losses to store it.
It sounds expensive to me, but technically it could be done.
It [Installing Solar PV]would be economic insanity
Simply wrong. See the linked post for installing them in Sweden.
And burning natural gas (or wood chips, garbage, etc.) in CHP is both more economic and often more efficient than in fuel cells.
Alan
Linköping is at 58.24°N so it is getting up there. But even up here at approaching 65°N an array can pay itself off in under ten years. Our electriciity is relatively expensive, but the solar site must still be pretty high quality up this far--my shaded hillside place unfortunately is out at the 20-30 yr payback and for me that would be economic insanity.
If you are not off the grid then you can't possible give a proper comparison.
The notion that putting power into the grid when it is least needed and drawing it 'in exchange' when it is is entirely fallacious.
Having power to spare in the summer won't stop you freezing in the winter.
Solar power in Germany supplies power at times when rates are above average.
Alan
The notion that putting power into the grid when it is least needed and drawing it 'in exchange' when it is is entirely fallacious.
I do believe that having variable demand based power rates and using those in calculations for solar's payback takes care of the exchange rate--I'm not jumping into the subsidy argument, except to say that much of the railroad buildout that helped make the US the economic powerhouse it became was heavily subsidized--just look at the checkerboard ownership pattern along railroad right of ways if you need a refresher. How much, how long for what and on and on I will let other debate but I will state unequivocally that subsidies can and have made positive contributions to nation's infrastructure by moving the timing of new tech implementation forward.
If you are not off the grid then you can't possible give a proper comparison.
I was replying about this line
Those so inclined could of course add pv to further reduce electricity use in the summer as fuel cells have no problem operating at part load. It would be economic insanity, but that does not seem to stop solar installations.
which came in a comment you made concerning an on grid installation in Linköping if you recall.
As long as the grid can use my power in the summer, which in my case is power that would otherwise be generated by burning fuel oil and naphtha, it would not be automatically economic nonsense to install solar even at 65°N. Considering the only natural gas we have is LNG that has to trucked 300 plus miles at the moment fuel cells are hardly an economic option.
In my case payback is way too slow even with tax credits, single rate metering and contributions other rate payers in our co-op voluntarily add to their bills to encourage renewable generation in this far north, thinly tied to a long grid, 14000 heating degree day (makes heat pumps very challenging) community. If I lived at the top of my hill and the trees were cleared for some sort of land use I found desirable solar installation would have made much more economic sense than taking a couple trips to Hawaii--which is about what a self installed system would cost me.
The only off grid ground source heat pump systems in this neighborhood use solar thermal to store summer sun in the heat sink under the building from which it can be withdrawn during the winter. It was not cheap no doubt, pv is a part of the system, no generator if I recall. Biomass would have been far cheaper (no shortage of wood heated off grid cabins in the woods/quite a few with some pv/battery and generally a fossil fuel powered generator) but the builder was trying to show it could be done. Oh there is one other system in the neighborhood but he use a relatively low temp hot springs to power and heat his resort.
Alan:
Since none of your figures make any sense to me, nor your use of them, and neither does the mind set of someone who sees an energy source which peaks at exactly the opposite time to when you need the power as useful, I am not really interested in debating with you, nor bothering with whatever you have managed to drag up to bolster an untenable position.
As long as you make spurious allegations on this board - I will contradicts them with facts.
You appear to have an bias against renewables that is not supported by the facts.
I have too little time ATM to properly refute your many strawmen. But just a few.
Wind in many areas tends to peak in the middle of the night. Not so good for peak North American loads, but still a good match with solar. And good for some secondary winter peaks.
German solar PV has dramatically reduced daily peak rates in Germany. A fact that contradicts your claim that solar does not produce when needed.
You make a useless point, that 6 or 7 kW of solar PV are needed to get an annual 1 kW average. But if solar panels are $0.75/watt, that can still be quite economic.
Fuel cells are still uneconomic - as is hydrogen.
But at least you have stopped pushing nukes so hard. Was it seeing them go off like popcorn at Fukishima or the EPR delays and cost overruns ?
Alan
PV, solar thermal and trigeneration with fuel cells is a good combination. A high temperature (300f) PEM with natural gas reformer can heat, cool and provide power with a dual stage absorption cooling unit. PV can provide power for the home and the car, solar thermal can provide home heat and hot water.
If they can get lithium sulfur and/or lithium air batteries viable, the cost, weight and size of batteries will come down and make them more practical. People may start to see that their car may not have to go 400 miles, that 200 could be acceptable. Quick charging, cordless charging and other methods would make it more convenient.
I meant to add that wind also usually peaks in the winter - while solar peaks in the spring/summer. A good match in most locales.
Alan
Thanks for keeping your disagreements civil. Please don't take them any farther.
Best to all,
Kate
CHP plants with the electricity generated driving heat pumps is a much more efficient and economic solution than either nuclear power driving heat pumps (what do you do when it is not so cold ?) or fuel cells.
CHP modulates with the weather, there are no significant safety or waste disposal issues, and they can be extraordinarily efficient (pushing 90% in the best case). CHPs run on a very wide variety of fuels today in volume - it is a mature technology.
Alan
The use of automobiles is one key measurable factor that points out trends in oil consumption.
I wonder- from an economics standpoint, is there a tipping point?
When considering Peak Oil, at what point does a suppression in demand, by a combination of increased fuel efficiency and high prices- impact the ability to retrieve high EROEI reserves?
In other words, production of tight oil/deep oil/heavy oil depends upon a certain price level to make the effort profitable. At what point does decreased demand affect pricing, decreasing unconventional extraction, and thus tightening supplies, keeping prices high enough to continually suppress demand but not high enough to warrant the expense of unconventional production?
Can we bump along "under the ice" like this, or will decreases in supply force a breakout on price that makes tight oil worth pumping?
How does this sort of "coffin corner" in the graph affect the general economy, especially one riddled with systemic debt issues in an era of high EROEI oil?
Just wonderin'.
Conventional crude production has started going down I believe, with the recent plateau in global oil production being maintained with new unconventional increases, which are totally dependent on high prices.
Conventional crude production will only go down from here on out and I doubt unconventional can ramp up fast enough to offset that, so therefore price will have to go up to maintain decent production rates.
I think, however, that a global shift in the financial system (i.e. a new currency) will force a dramatic change before we see any significant further trends to emerge within the current supply/demand/price structure. In other words, it might not be a relevant question to ask because we'll soon have a new monetary system and then all this analysis will be thrown out the window.
U.S. passenger vehicles are not the same as the entire fleet...or am I missing something?
Do these numbers include SUVs and trucks?
And in case anybody didn't notice, we are in an economic depression. Those of us who are on the ground with the 99% will tell you...nobody can afford anything anymore.
There is no recovery based on income...it's all debt, and asset price speculation.
There are other ways, besides better fleet mpg, of significantly reducing national oil consumption by policy choices. In the linked essay I compare Denmark, France and the United States from 2001 to 2011.
http://oilfreetransport.blogspot.com/2012/06/national-policies-oil-consu...
Denmark -21.2% in a decade, France -11.2% in a decade.
Best Hopes for More than One Policy to Reduce Oil Use,
Alan
Prof Hamilton, good analysis. Exxon agrees with you - they predict industrialized oil demand will decline over the next 2-3 decades. What bothers me are predictions that industrializing nations will drive oil demand up to 110M-120M b/d by 2040. How can the planet deliver 120M b/d of affordable oil? I don't see it.
My hope is that PV's historical 30-year price and efficiency improvement slopes will continue at the same pace for the next 30 years, giving us $0.035/kwh (raw cost) median electricity by 2030 (or $0.90/DCW). As markets heed the signal of increasingly cheaper electricity, vastly more capital will be pumped into storage and EV mobility r/d, accelerating EV and plug-in EV technology to the point where by 2040 virtually all new light passenger vehicles will be EV. Well, that's my hope!
I am hoping for Peak Demand before we hit Peak Oil. If we get CNG/LNG for buses, trucks and ships, with synthetic fuels for jets and EV/FCV for cars, we can reduce the use of oil. THIS is what we should be working on world wide.
Chinese Ultra-capacitor bus:
http://youtu.be/LYL6NyU1g3k
http://youtu.be/t3rg-SsPJuU
Proterra Quick Charge:
http://youtu.be/9JpMTWdPZ6c
Opbrid Fast Charge Station:
http://youtu.be/l7gWDUrTAqg
It looks like short route/frequent stop buses are well on their way towards electrification. This might even help increase ridership by making them less loud.
What would be really nice to see is quick seat-removal added to buses so that they can pull dirty seats out to clean them and put an extra set of clean seats in with little downtime. Buses aren't really an option for me, but the few times I've been on one half of the seats looked like they'd been vomited in or urinated on and barely cleaned. It was a completely different experience from a Young charter bus I was on with a group which was a quiet, clean, magic-cloud that floated down the highway to our destination.
Your inclusion of "synthetic fuels for jets" makes me realize I'd be remiss to not point out that these technowizard fixes only buy a little bit of time for humanity to work out a real solution - of which a plan to reduce population will have to be a large part. We're running into so many other limits that just changing the way Business-as-Usual is fueled will only slightly delay a collapse. If the "fixes" which are implemented are only used to increase population it will only lead to a more drastic collapse. If the "fixes" are used to buy time to stabilize and gradually reduce population while simultaneously decreasing the impact we have, there's a good chance to avoid a collapse.
If the "fixes" which are implemented are only used to increase population it will only lead to a more drastic collapse.
It makes life easier to realize that this is a false dilemma: education and (relative) affluence for women leads to sharp drops in fertility.
So, finding ways to make life better in the short run will actually also directly lead to a better life in the long run.